Posted on 08/29/2014 7:10:25 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
St. Paul police responded Thursday to criticism over officers' interaction with a man, including police use of a Taser, saying a video doesn't tell the whole story.
Chris Lollie, 28, said he was sitting on a chair in a downtown skyway Jan. 31 when a security guard told him it was a private area and he couldn't be there. No signs were posted saying it was private, Lollie said. The guard called police.
Lollie, of St. Paul, told an officer he was heading to pick up his children and didn't have to identify himself because he had done nothing wrong.
On the cellphone video that Lollie took, he can be heard saying, "The problem is I'm black, that's the problem. No, it really is, because I didn't do anything wrong.
WARNING: This video includes expletives.
Lollie said an officer later put his hands around his throat and ripped his jacket open. Another officer used a Taser on him, Lollie said.
Police wrote in a report that Lollie was "actively resisting by attempting to pull his arm away" and "began to forcefully try to shove past us as he was pulling away from us." An officer pushed Lollie against a wall to try to control him and Lollie accused the officer of trying to choke him, the report said.
"Several times I attempted to force his hands behind his back but was unable to overcome his active resistance," the report said. When Lollie's "resistance was becoming uncontrollable," an officer used a Taser on him, the report said.
Lollie was charged with three misdemeanors -- trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process. All counts were dismissed July 31. Lollie said his attorney went to court with surveillance video from the skyway and witness statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
“His rotten attitude was also on display when not showing ID to police.”
Your papers, please.
Okay, but the guy was sitting in a chair when this whole thing started. Why put a chair there if you don't want loitering?
If you're sitting on a bench (obviously provided for people to sit on) and you're waiting outside your kid's preschool and you're not bothering anyone then why should you have to move?
Failing to see the evidence of a racial connection.
That's a ridiculous comparison. He wasn't on someone's back poarch, he was in an area where access by the public is expected and encouraged. He wasn't be disruptive. He wasn't bothering people - except for the cops apparently. He was peacefuly minding his own business and was told to leave. Why? What justification was there for the demand to move on? What crime was he committing?
That’s a strange argument. He was in front of his kids’ preschool and was picking them up. I’m pretty sure he would get charged with child endangerment if he told his kids, “I’ll be at a public park, walk around downtown until you find me.”
Through most of the video I thought, “geeze, dude, just show them id,” until the policeman said, “I’m not you’re brother.”
Well, that says it all. Yes massa. I get you yo boots, massa.
Wrong: Hey you can't be here this is private property.
Right: Good Afternoon, can I help you find something sir? You probably didn't know that this is private property.
Or for the love of God and all that is Holy, if he was just sitting there not bothering anyone and the client did not ask for him to be removed, just leave him alone.
I have dealt with my share of wanna be cops. Now that I do the hiring, I won't hire these jokers.
I have no idea. I do know the article is really giving only one side of the story. Whether the other side holds any water or not simply can’t be determined.
The subtext is that a black man minding his own business was rousted from a semi-public space for the crime of sitting while black. That fits it nicely with the liberal POV, but I just don’t buy it. I sincerely doubt low-paid security guys go looking for this type of trouble without any reason.
IOW, I don’t know what happened, but I suspect it isn’t as simple as the story portrays. Much as with the Trayvon and Ferguson issues, the story is almost certainly more complex, and quite possibly the opposite of what is initially portrayed.
“...and i an a big supporter of the police.”
Why?
Read the article again he said he was on his way to pick up his children. So from that I assume he was waiting for the train or subway to do so.
Yes, but the question remains: can the police legally order someone to move along if they’re loitering in front of a private business? If they can’t, then this guy can sue the bejeesus out of the St. Paul police dept.
The article is less than helpful in determining where this took place relative to the child’s preschool.
This was not “in front of” a private business on a public street, this was inside a private property building.
He was supposedly sitting in a lounge area for building employees and was asked to leave. If I go into a private business, perhaps a Bank of America branch, and sit there long enough, they’re likely to ask me if I have business with them and if not to please leave. Their waiting area is not a public facility. Even though it probably doesn’t have a sign up that it’s a private area.
It is highly likely this could have been handled better by security and the cops, but then it’s also highly likely the guy has a chip on his shoulder about being black, when I would probably also have been asked to move along in a similar situation. But if an identical situation had arisen when I refused to leave, nobody would care. I’m not black.
In order to do that they would have to define loitering and have a law against that. According to the St. Paul municiple code loitering is not illegal unless done after midnight and on the streets. This man did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal, other than apparently be the wrong race in the wrong area.
The fact that he wasn't charged indicates he wasn't trespassing.
The fact that the first officer on the scene has retired indicates she had it wrong.
She took the word of the private security guard and escalated the situation and when the two additional officers arrive they escalated further.
The fact that "witnesses" to the event showed up at the hearing is also significant.
Apparently, the bro just be a uppity black boy
According to the article he was sitting in a chair in the skyway. Access to the skyway is determined by the buildings it connects, and those buildings can close skyway access to their building during non-business hours. But so long as the skyway is open people have free access to it. It is not a lounge area, it is not an employees-only area. If there is a bench or a chair in it then there is no reason why they can't sit there.
I just watched the video at REASON.
Heartbreaking.
The guy never broke a single law.
His first real “command” from the cops was, “You’re under arrest”.
Of course, never an idea to try to make a point, no matter how good, if you’re carrying weed...
I know that locale. There were no “private property” or other similar signs posted last time I was there.
Maybe that’s changed, but seeing how it’s located in a public skyway, (aerial sidewalk for the public) I doubt it.
This is why Minneapolis police (and then St.Paul) will all end up wearing camera badges.
Maybe he means he pays a lot in property taxes.
B--Right: Good Afternoon, can I help you find something sir? You probably didn't know that this is private property.
With me I am up and moving with A or B
But with an entitled black dude you must use B
IOW --- "A" is not a blow to my psyche. I just shrug and move on. But with others you have to walk on eggshells
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.